Search Serato tracks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses several important behaviors beyond the annotations: tracks with unparsed keys are included and key_source indicates origin, paths are redacted to ~, and rating is 0-1 not 0-5. These add meaningful context to the read-only/idempotent hints and help set expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense but efficient paragraph. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information, and it front-loads the core purpose. It is not overly verbose for a tool with 12 parameters, though it could benefit from light structuring.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex search tool, it covers the most critical behaviors (matching, key, bpm, rating, sort, defaults, redaction). With an output schema present, return format is covered. Pagination (cursor) and some filters are not explained, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates for several parameters: explains q matching semantics, the bpm combination restriction, key.compatible_with expansion, rating scale, sort options, and default fields. However, it does not explain added, crate, flags, genre, limit, or cursor, though their names are somewhat suggestive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Search the Serato library') with a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_crate_tracks and get_tracks by describing free-text matching semantics and its scope. The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage constraints (e.g., 'bpm.around cannot be combined with bpm.min/bpm.max', 'relevance needs a q', rating scale is 0-1). It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know this is the search tool for broad queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.